People v. David W.
1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1485, 116 Cal.App.3d 689, 172 Cal. Rptr. 266 (1981)
Rule of Law:
A person cannot be convicted of being under the influence of drugs in a public place if their presence in that public place was solely the result of being forcibly taken there by police officers from a private residence.
Facts:
- The appellant's mother called the police because her 15-year-old son was under the influence of drugs, violent, and creating a disturbance.
- Police officers arrived at the home and were directed to an upstairs bedroom, where the appellant was being restrained by his brother and friends.
- The officers observed that the appellant was attacking his brother, had slurred speech, red eyes, and was unable to stand without assistance.
- Determining the appellant was under the influence and unable to care for himself, the officers handcuffed him.
- The officers physically assisted the appellant down the stairs and out of the house to a police car while he cursed and resisted.
- The appellant was transported to a hospital, where medical staff attempted to pump his stomach.
- During the medical procedure, a packet of Tuinal pills fell from the appellant's boot.
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed a petition in the juvenile court charging the appellant with violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f) (disorderly conduct).
- The juvenile court found that the appellant violated the statute.
- The juvenile court placed the appellant on probation.
- The appellant appealed the finding of the violation to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant guilty of violating the disorderly conduct statute for being under the influence in a public place when they are forcibly removed from their home and transported into public by police officers?
Opinions:
Majority - Ashby
No. The court concluded that a conviction for disorderly conduct in a public place cannot be sustained when the defendant was in a private residence and was only present in a public place because they were compelled by the police to go there. The court reasoned that while the bedroom was manifestly not a public place, the appellant only arrived at the sidewalk and police car because he was handcuffed and forcibly removed. The court distinguished this case from precedents like People v. Olson and People v. Perez, noting that in those cases, the defendants either had no right to remain in the private dwelling or voluntarily stepped into a public area. The court emphasized that while police were justified in moving the appellant for medical necessity, this humanitarian act could not serve as the basis for a criminal conviction for a voluntary act he did not commit.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the criminal law requirement of a voluntary actus reus (guilty act). It establishes that the element of 'location' in public intoxication statutes cannot be satisfied by state compulsion. The court draws a critical distinction between police authority to act for public safety (civilly detaining or moving a person for medical aid) and the state's ability to criminally prosecute based on that movement. Practically, this prevents the police from 'creating' a crime by dragging an intoxicated person out of their home. However, the court notes that if the person possesses contraband (like the pills found later), they can still be charged for possession, as location is not an element of that specific offense.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. David W. (1981)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"